Thomas Jefferson, after his experience as president, and
after many years of observing the judiciary, said in 1820:

The judiciary of the
United States
is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to
undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. ...

Having found from experience that impeachment is an impractical thing, a
mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life, they skulk from
responsibility to public opinion. ...

Had
Jefferson
observed the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the last fifty
years, he would have seen his warnings confirmed.Much insidious destruction has been wrought upon our Constitution.

Many articles and books have been written on the problem,
some of which are Men in Black, by
Mark R. Levin, 2005; The Supremacists,
by Phyllis Schlafly, 2004; “Runaway Judge,” by Blake Hurst, 1995; “Curbing
Our Imperial Courts,” by Roger Clegg, 1995; and “The Conservative Case for
Amending the Constitution,” by Robert H. Bork in 2000. In 1993, AEI Press
published Judge Bork’s fine book, Coercing
Virtue – The Worldwide Rule of Judges.

The deplorable actions of our federal courts, and
particularly the United States Supreme Court, have become so flagrantly wrong
that the American people should do something to correct the matter.

It is a situation that could easily be corrected, and not
only for the future, but in such a way that past damage to our Constitution
could also be automatically repaired, over time. It merely takes correcting the
root problem.

The basic problem is that our Constitution has no curb for
activist judges, except impeachment, which they obviously do not fear. This is
because there is nothing in our Constitution that states how a law or a
constitutional provision should be interpreted by the courts. The courts, and
particularly the United States Supreme Court, make their own rules for
interpretation. Under English law, before the
United States
became a country, jurists and authorities like Sir William Blackstone developed
rules for construing statutory law which required first going by the plain
wording of the provision, and if further construction was needed for a
particular issue, then determining the intent and purpose of those who enacted
the law. This is not only a matter of common sense, but it is a rule that
requires judges to interpret the law, and leaves the making and changing of the
law to those who have that authority. These are also the only rules that
prohibit judges from injecting their own particular ideas and biases into the
law and onto our Constitution.

We were very fortunate in the early history of our country
to have had some Supreme Court justices who respected our Constitution, and who
followed and developed such rules as rules of construction for the federal
courts. All of our early Supreme Court justices stated and followed these time
honored rules clearly and emphatically. These included a number of eminent
jurists, including Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice James Wilson, Justice
Bushrod Washington, Justice and eminent constitutional authority Joseph Story,
Chief Justice Roger Taney, and later such jurists as Justices Benjamin Curtis,
Stephen Field, John Harlan (the first Justice John Harlan), Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo. These judges had the
integrity to recognize that only the people and their elected representatives
have the right to change the Constitution. The rules were formulated and
followed by the best legal minds in the country.

These rules were followed with reasonable consistency for
more than 150 years, but finally the power that our federal courts have began to
overweigh their integrity, and the temptation to mold our Constitution according
to their own thinking was engaged in by a number of them. This misbehavior
became particularly prevalent and great damage was done during the era of Chief
Justice Earl Warren. Today, sadly to say, the majority of our Supreme Court are
activist liberal judges, and great harm to our Constitution has been done and is
continuing to be done in a number of areas. In recent years, only the late Chief
Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, have shown any respect for
our Constitution. The majority has established its preference for European,
United Nations,
World Court
precepts, and their own liberal biases, over the intent and purpose of our
Constitution, including our Bill of Rights. Hopefully, our new Chief Justice,
John G. Roberts, and our most recent justice, Samuel Alito, will add some
conservatism to the Court, but the majority will still be liberals.

The primary purpose of our entire Constitution was to have
a government of the people, by the people, and for the people – and not of the
courts, by the courts, and according to the activist ideas of the courts.

This judicial misbehavior, besides damaging our
Constitution, has caused or aggravated many other problems in the Country. It
has been the primary factor in creating a very litigious society. Spurious and
unfounded lawsuits of all kinds are filed around the country; and Congress
continually struggles with trying to correct some of the problems caused. A
large part of our medical expense is brought about by invalid malpractice cases,
and excessive verdicts in many that are well founded.

Activist lawyers are continually trying to figures out new
bases for lawsuits of all kinds, many of which are unwarranted and outrageous,
and they are continually aided by activist judges.

Lack of any binding rules of construction of the law
causes an enormous number of appeals to the federal circuit courts of appeal,
and the contrary decisions among the circuit courts (which come about for the
same reason) create more cases that the Supreme Court must decide. The resulting
workloads of the courts are tremendously increased. A great part, if not most,
of this great caseload would be eliminated if the courts could be depended upon
to follow the time honored and time proven rules for interpreting the meaning of
our statutory and constitutional law. There would simply be much more uniformity
in decisions, and therefore much fewer contradictory decisions that higher
courts must straighten out. Activist lawyers would be discouraged from filing
spurious lawsuits, and also from trying to invent new and outrageous causes of
action.

Even some of the best of our judges have at times yielded
to the temptation that comes from the power they have to make their own rules of
interpretation.

We witness congress wasting great amounts of time because
of filibusters against judicial appointments by certain members who want to get
judicial activists on the court who they think will carry their particular
political agendas, rather than making decisions according the Constitution as
they should. Committees hold up appointments, when their party is in the
majority; and all kinds of jockeying and procedures are engaged in by both
parties to try to get judges and justices favorable to particular views and
political agendas. It is a very serious and long-standing problem that should
now be corrected for the benefit of our people and our constitutional form of
government. This problem would be largely eliminated if judges could be depended
upon to follow our statutory and constitutional provisions according to the true
intent and purposes for which they were enacted. If judges could be depended
upon to follow the intent and purpose of the law, including our constitutional
provisions, their personal views and politics should make little difference. But
this is obviously not the situation that presently exists – hence the
political infighting and confusion that is clearly damaging to the country, and
to our Constitution. The many U. S. Supreme Court cases covered in the book I
have written on this subject show how easy it is to determine the purpose and
intent for enacting a law, and particularly a provision of our Constitution.

Many people in the country are now fed up with what the
Supreme Court is doing to our Constitution. Various knowledgeable people and
leaders in the country have a variety of ideas on what we should do about the
problem.

In a recent article in Human
Events,
12-18-06
, "Term-Limit Judges, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings," Mark R. Levin
advocates amendments to the Constitution to limit the terms of federal judges,
and allow Congress to veto a Supreme Court decision by the vote of a "super
majority" in both houses. Levin is a noted and respected author on this
problem with judges, and served as Chief of Staff to Attorney General Ed Meese
in the Reagan Justice Department. As explained below, Judge Robert Bork
previously advocated a similar method for handling the problem.However, I do not believe that this is the way to take care of the
situation. It would put judges more into politics, and it would reduce their
independence. Moreover, it would allow Congress the power of overriding and
actually amending our Constitution.Our
founders had a better way. Article V of our Constitution provides that it may
only be amended by the people and their representatives, with a weighting by
states within our federalist system. The problem is merely the judges – not
our Constitution. Also, this would do nothing to repair past damage to our
Constitution. A better way to take care of this matter is explained below.

Robert H. Bork, an eminent jurist, educator, and writer
posits that the best way to stop our serious court misbehavior would be a
constitutional amendment making any federal or state court decision subject to
being overturned by a majority vote of each house of Congress. (Slouching
Towards Gomorrah.
New York
;HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1996; p. 117
). In a later book, he adds three other possibilities to help to some extent:
(1) Removing all federal jurisdiction as to certain cases, such as abortion,
under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) Appointing judges who
will construe the Constitution according to the original understanding of its
principles; (3) Persuade the Court itself to mend its ways. (Coercing Virtue, The AEI Press, Washington, D.C., 2003; pp. 81-82
). Judge Bork fully recognizes the improbability of any of these reforms in our
current political climate, and their limitations if they could be accomplished.

Phyllis Schlafly, in her fine article, "We Must
Reject the Rule of Judges," The
Phyllis Schlafly Report, March, 2004
, recommends such things as the Constitution Restoration Act, pending in
Congress, removing jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear cases brought
against a federal, state, or local government, or officer for acknowledging God.
Mrs. Schlafly also states:

The Constitution
Restoration Act also orders federal courts not to rely on foreign laws,
administrative rules or court decisions. Americans have been shocked to learn
that five U.S. Supreme Court Justices have cited foreign sources, even though it
is self-evident that
U.S.
judges should be bound by the U.S. Constitution and
U.S.
laws, not foreign ones.

The Constitution
Restoration Act also states that a judge who engages in any activity that
exceeds the jurisdiction of the court thereby commits "a breach of
standards of good behavior" and may be removed by impeachment and
conviction.

The temerity of our Supreme Court justices in referring to
the law of liberal European nations, and of the United Nations, instead of our
own valid historical precedent, and in decimating our Constitution by doing so,
shows their utter disregard for our Constitution, and their lack of fear of
impeachment.

David Barton strongly recommends that the people try to
pressure Congress into impeaching judges who are engaging in the misbehavior
that I have outlined in this book. He clearly points out their constitutional
power to do so. He also states:

If impeachment is not soon restored to its original role as a tool to
reign in the judiciary, then Thomas Jefferson's portentous warning will become
established reality:

The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary
which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (Jefferson, Memoirs, Vol. IV, p. 317) (Barton, David, Restraining Judicial Activism, Wallbuilders,
Aledo
,
Tex.
2003; p.50
)

Many reputable leaders around the country are calling for
impeachment of our activist judges because of their misbehavior for their
decisions regarding God, the Ten Commandments, religion, abortion,
homosexuality, and other things that I have covered in detail in the book.

I am for all of these things, but all would be temporary,
all would be very difficult, and none would repair the past serious erosion of
our Constitution and the rights of the people to govern themselves. None would
even prevent future misbehavior in areas not particularly covered. I certainly
think that Congress has failed in its duty to impeach these activist judges, as
do Bork, Schlafly, Barton, and a great number of our cultural leaders.

As to such things as the Constitution Restoration Act, I
am all for it. But it is only a piecemeal solution, and may be an overextension
of the power of Congress. The Supreme Court, if it passes, may well declare it
unconstitutional, whether it is or not. They have already exhibited that
propensity, time and again. Sooner or later we must have a constitutional
amendment to turn judges from makers of the law, including constitutional law,
back to being judges and properly interpreting the law.

Persuading judges to refrain from their misbehavior has
never worked in the past, and would always be up to the discretion of each
judge.

I do not like the idea of taking away from the Court the
power to overturn legislation, state or federal, that is truly unconstitutional.

Our Constitution, as provided for us by our founding
fathers, is the world's greatest instrument for just government. Our problem has
been misbehavior of judges, and particularly liberal justices of the United
States Supreme Court.

My solution is a simple constitutional amendment requiring
judges to follow the time honored rules for interpreting constitutional and
statutory law that were long ago established by the best legal minds in the
country. This would obviously prevent future misbehavior. The reason it would in
time correct past damage to our Constitution, is because it would remove prior
cases as precedent, unless they were also decided by those rules. Willful
failure to follow the rules would be express grounds for removal.

This one amendment would permanently take care of all of
the problems brought about by our activist judges. And judges would retain all
of their independence under the Constitution, as envisioned by our Founders.
They would merely be required to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution,
rather than changing it to their liking.

Moreover, it would retain our full tripartite government
with its separation of powers, and its checks and balances. Our Constitution is
a beautifully formed and balanced instrument of government. The problem has been
that judges have not retained their integrity and followed it.

The fact that our Constitution itself provides that only
the people and their elected representatives have a right to change it expressly
prohibits the misbehavior judges engage in by usurping the right of the people
to change the Constitution.

Fair and honest judges should welcome these simple binding
guidelines on construing the law.

It would be easier for lawyers and judges to figure out
what the law really is and predict the outcome of litigation. We would no longer
have to look at the political views and biases of the individual judges to
predict the outcome of a case. We could truly assess a case by studying the
relevant common, statutory, and constitutional law. This in itself would greatly
reduce caseloads. It would go far in curbing the excesses of a society that has
become so litigious.

It would tend to eliminate judge and jurisdiction shopping
in an effort to get a case before a particular judge of particular biases,
either by attorneys or by organizations like the ACLU.

It should eliminate to a large extent the striving of
liberals for litmus tests for judicial appointees on the views so dear to
liberals, such as abortion and a privileged status for homosexuality. It would
very greatly reduce Congress' work in this regard.

Enforcement of this provision would help take politics out
of judging. And judges would be encouraged to try to become true jurists of
integrity.

Above all, this would put changing the Constitution back
in the hands of the people and their representatives, as provided by Article V
of our Constitution. It would
restore the right of the people to run their governments at both the state and
federal levels, subject only to true constitutional limitations, as intended by
our Founders.

If the people could really become informed on this matter,
I believe that they would pressure our representatives into bringing it about.
We also have many representatives with the integrity to support this proposed
amendment.

Any fair and honest person who truly believes in our
Constitution should favor the amendment. Anyone who would oppose it would be put
in the position of having to admit he prefers judicial activism to the true
meaning of our Constitution.

I have written a book, A
way to Save Our Constitution From Judges,that shows in detail the early development of acceptable rules for
construing our Constitution and laws, and the case by case misbehavior of our
United States Supreme Court in various fields. The book is currently being
considered for publication.

I believe that the book is written so that any ordinary
person should be able to understand it; but it will also withstand a critical
examination by any true constitutional law scholar.

Below is a copy of the Amendment I am proposing.

AMENDMENT XXX

Section 1. The meaning of a provision of the Constitution
of the
United States
shall be determined by the courts as follows:

A. It shall be given the meaning intended by the framers
and those who ratified it, at the time it was ratified, with emphasis on the
intention of the ratifiers, when such can be reasonably established.

B. The following factors shall be considered in arriving
at the intended meaning:

1. Primary consideration shall be given to the plain wording
of the provision. Phrases and ideas of judges or others not in the constitution
shall not be engrafted and treated as a part of the constitution. Where the
wording needs further construction for application to a particular question, the
following additional factors shall be considered to the extent needed.

2. Reliable and relevant legal and general history of this
country, and of
Great Britain
, where applicable, up to the date of ratification.

3. Relevant debates, speeches, and writings of our founders,
framers, and those who took part in ratification.

4. Relevant matters of official record, including
congressional records, legislative records, and other official records.

5. Extraneous matters such as personal views of judges and
justices, events at a later date, changes in conditions, and what other
countries may be doing in like cases shall not be considered, as those are
matters for the people and their representatives, who have the sole prerogative
to change the Constitution when changes are needed.

C. The precedents of prior cases shall not be followed
unless those decisions were based on the principles of judicial construction
herein stated.

D. A law enacted by the
United States
or a law or constitutional provision enacted by a State is presumed to be
valid, and shall not be overturned by a federal court unless its invalidity, as
contrary to this Constitution, is beyond any reasonable doubt.

E. Each court opinion on a constitutional issue or an
important question of law shall set forth its basis; and the judges or justices
joining in the majority opinion and those participating in any dissenting
opinion shall be shown. Each judge or justice may be held accountable for his
position.

Section 2. The meaning of a law enacted by the
United States
shall be construed to mean what Congress intended it to mean when it was
passed. When needed and where applicable, the same factors shall be used to
determine the intent and purpose of Congress as are stated for determining the
intent and purpose of a provision of the Constitution. When the meaning of a
state law has been determined by the highest court of the state, that meaning
shall be followed by federal courts. If it has not been so determined, the
meaning of a state law shall be the meaning intended by the State Legislature,
or the people, when it was passed. The same factors should be used in
determining the intent and purpose of the State Legislature, or of the people,
as are used in determining the intent of congress as to federal laws.

Section 3. All United States Supreme Court justices and
all federal appellate and lower court judges shall take an oath to uphold the
Constitution of the
United States
, including the rules set forth herein for construing it. The wording of such
oath shall be prescribed by Congress. Willful failure to abide by the oath shall
be misbehavior requiring removal. This amendment shall have no effect on other
grounds or provisions for removal or impeachment provided in the Constitution.

Section 4. Removal under this amendment of any justice of
the United States Supreme Court or of any appellate or lower court federal judge
shall be by a bill of removal which may be initiated by any member in either the
House of Representatives or the Senate. On such presentment of a bill of removal
in either the House or the Senate, it shall be voted on by the body in which it
was first presented. If as many as one-fourth of the members of that body vote
to proceed with the bill of removal, each defendant judge or justice named for
misbehavior in the bill shall be given a fair and impartial hearing in a
judiciary committee of that body, which shall make a record of the hearing. The
judiciary committee shall then recommend for or against removal, but the
recommendation shall only be informative and not binding on the House or the
Senate, which shall proceed to consider and vote on the bill. No other committee
shall hear or act on the bill. If passed by votes of simple majorities by both
bodies, and signed by the president, the offending judge or justice is thereby
removed. A presidential veto of the bill of removal may be overridden by another
simple majority vote of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. No
filibuster or other hindrance shall be allowed to stop the voting on a bill of
removal.

A bill of removal may be brought against one or more
judges or justices at the same time. The bill of removal voted by each body of
Congress shall set forth the alleged misbehavior of the accused justice or
judge, and it is not subject to review by any court.

Section 5. Where a final decision of any federal court has
had the effect of declaring unconstitutional any law of the United States or of
any state, including a constitutional provision of a state, a bill for review
may be passed by congress or a legislature of any state affected, stating
grounds for possible error in said decision, and notice thereof given to the
United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall then in due course review
the prior decision and render another decision thereon on the questions
presented, using the rules set forth in this amendment. .

There shall be no limitation on the period of time in
which a bill for review may be presented on any final decision of a federal
court, whether made before or after this amendment. A bill for review in
Congress may be initiated and passed in the same manner as a bill for removal. A
bill for review by any state affected by a decision shall be passed in the
manner determined by the state legislature. The United States Supreme Court
shall hear and consider only one bill for review of a decision, and the decision
on the questions presented in a bill for review shall not be subject to another
bill for review. The decision shall set forth grounds as required in other
decisions, and it can be grounds for a bill for removal of any justice or judge
for misbehavior.